GMO in Ghana, & Matters Arising -Part 3

Let’s move on to one very popular study which was heralded by some anti-GMO supporters as proof that GMOs are unsafe, and thereby pressuring governments to place a ban on GMOs in Europe and Africa.  I’m sure people following the debate have heard about it and even seen images of rats with huge tumors all over the internet.  To me, it serves as a typical example of how people can use a study that is inconclusive to make emphatic claims about GMOs that lack scientific integrity. I am talking about the Seralini study. Just how credible is the data? Is it really logical to draw such conclusions or are we just “willfully” confusing correlation with causation just for confirmation bias?

Seralini

The aim of the study was to determine long term toxicity of GMOs using rat models. It studied Sprague-Dawley rats for 2 years with one group fed GMO corn from Monsanto and the control group placed on a GMO free diet. They reported 50% of males and 70% of females fed GMO died prematurely compared with 30% and 20% in the control group.

These are a few of my questions that I think undermine claims in the media.

·         People are suspicious of studies released by biotech companies as likely biased. Good, but how about a study released by Seralini, founder and director of an anti-GMO research group called CRIIGEN?

·         During the press conference to announce his findings, he made journalists sign a confidentiality agreement not to contact other scientists before publishing.

·         In a study that is basically learning about toxicology and not about tumor biopsies or morphology, why was it necessary to include graphic images of rats with huge tumors in your paper if not to appeal to sentiments and trigger fear instead of logic of the audience?

            http://parrottlab.uga.edu/parrottlab/Publications/Arjo-et-al-TRAG-2013.pdf This journal review also noted            that rats that develop tumors in experiments are euthanized, why did Seralini’s team allow the tumor to grow to grotesque size and then paraded images to the press? It is unethical.

·         Rat model is inadequate,- You can not translate what happens in rats directly into what will happen in humans. Since it is very unethical to test human directly, models like rats are used to give an idea but in many cases different events are observed in human trials

·         Number of rats (100 in each group) was too small to make a conclusion that is statistically significant.

·         The rat type (Sprague-Dawley) developed tumors spontaneously anyway, at a whooping rate of about 80% as suggested by Suzuki et. Al 1979. Rats in the control group fed non-GMO corn still developed tumors. Also, with a lifespan of 2.5-3.5 years, a 2 year study is really dealing with old rats that are prone to developing tumors.

·         Lastly, some of the rats fed GMO corn outlived the ones placed on the non-GMO diet. So, that further challenges claims made by people that the results proved GMOs can be linked to cancers.

As you can see, even a study has to be analyzed to eliminate other logical reasons that can contribute to the results. The experiment method also needs to be evaluated before the data is given credibility. This criterion should also apply to studies that suggest GMOs are safe.

In research, one way of doing this is peer reviewing. Where scientists are contacted for comments and critique before and even after a paper is published. After publication, there are scientists all over constantly trying to reproduce the experiment or examine the data and conclusion.

The Seralini paper was found inconclusive after it was held to scrutiny. A press release from CRIIGEN admit that “the data are inconclusive, due to the rat strain and the number of animals used” (http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=384&Itemid=84http://) The paper has been retracted. Is this a conspiracy to silence anti-GMO activists or an example of an experiment that just did not pass scrutiny and the peer review process? I am of the latter opinion. Further studies are however always welcomed.

Let’s be realistic, are GMOs the silver bullet to end world hunger? I don’t think so. But it can help, food security is however more complex than increasing yields or producing more nutritious varieties. WHO identifies three pillars of food security:

I.            Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.

II.          Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.

III.           Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.

Food security is a complex problem that includes social and economic factors. It takes a dedicated government to identify and address this. There are non-GMO methods that can help, we can also prevent post harvest losses, improve transportation to markets etc. A holistic approach is needed to tackle the issue of food security. Not an eagerness to cut deals with foreign corporations.